The Complainant is Allianz SE, Germany, represented internally.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States of America (“United States”) / Lowkey, Lowkey James, United States, 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 21, 2020. On January 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 23, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 23, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 27, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 27, 2020. The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the ultimate parent company of the Allianz insurance and financial services group (the “Allianz Group”). The Allianz Group is a global provider of financial and insurance services serving approximately 92 million customers in more than 70 countries. On the insurance side, the Complainant is a market leader in the German market and has a strong international presence. Allianz is one of the world's largest asset managers, with third party assets of EUR 1,436 billion under management at the end of year 2018. The Complainant has registered and protected the ALLIANZ mark worldwide. The Complainant has used the ALLIANZ mark in connection with its insurance, healthcare and financial services since 1890. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 10, 2019. The Complainant has submitted that the disputed domain name resolved to a website being used to phish private data from Internet users at the time of the submission of the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the ALLIANZ mark is a well-known mark that has been registered in numerous jurisdictions prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant owns several registrations worldwide for the trademark ALLIANZ, as well as several domain names bearing this mark: ALLIANZ, International Registration number 447004, registered on September 12, 1979; The Complainant argues that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent (a) does not own a trademark registration or application for any ALLIANZ mark, (b) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (c) is barred from being known by the disputed domain name on account of the Complainant’s prior rights, and (d) is not making a legitimate business noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, particularly noting the Respondent attempts to phish private data from Internet users through the website appearing at the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith. Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in full in the disputed domain name is evidence that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. Mere addition of the dictionary terms “investment” and “partners” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of other terms (whether descriptive, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). This Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” to the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see Carlsberg A/S v. Xu Guo Xing,WIPO Case No. D2017-0301; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Shimei Wang,WIPO Case No. D2016-2517; Livelle v. Martijn Noordermer,WIPO Case No. D2016-2524). The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing this requirement. In view of the difficulties inherent in proving a negative and because the relevant information is mainly in the possession of the Respondent, it is enough for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case which, if not rebutted by sufficient evidence from the Respondent will lead to this ground being set forth. Refraining from submitting a Response, the Respondent has brought to the Panel’s attention no circumstances from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel will now examine the Complainant’s arguments regarding the absence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner. The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b). Furthermore, the unrebutted claim of the Complainant that the disputed domain name is being used for phishing at sensitive data supports a finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13) The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. In the Panel’s view, a finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. In this case, the widespread commercial recognition of the trademark ALLIANZ is such that the Respondent, must have had knowledge of the trademark before registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent appears to have chosen the disputed domain name in order to deliberately attract Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it was the website of the Complainant, or otherwise linked to or authorized by the Complainant. That impression is only reinforced by the content of the Respondent’s site whereby the Complainant’s marks are included. As such, the Panel is satisfied that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this circumstance shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In addition, the risk of the disputed domain name being used for phishing, supported by the Complainant’s claims and evidence, affirms a finding of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4) The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Daniel Peña
ALLIANZ, International Registration number 714618, registered on May 4, 1999;
ALLIANZ and design, International Registration number 713841, registered on May 3, 1999;
ALLIANZ, Germany, Registration number 987481, registered on July 11, 1979;
ALLIANZ Germany, Registration number 39927827, registered on July 16, 1999;
ALLIANZ, European Union, Registration number 000013656, registered on July 22, 2002; and,
ALLIANZ and design, European Union, Registration number 002981298, registered on April 5, 2004.
Sole Panelist
Date: March 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy